| Articles | The Changing face of Teambuilding |
The Changing face of Teambuilding |
Back to Articles
I often get asked by industry publications if I’d like to
write editorial or them. When I agree, they want to charge me a fee
because they feel that my article will constitute “marketing”.
The real message behind this practice though, is not that they want
to charge me for marketing, but they are willing to place anyone’s
contribution if they are willing to pay. Irrespective of the author’s
experience and / or standing in the industry.
One such publication recently published a “feature” on
teambuilding in which the contributors (along with glossy photos
and company promotion) claimed that outdoor teambuilding was fast
replacing indoor, boardroom-type training sessions. The same publication
ran an almost identical feature about four years ago. It is naïve
to think that in the fast –changing business culture we operate
in, teambuilding trends would not also have changed over the last
half-decade.
This is a glaring distortion of the current trends in teambuilding.
Companies want to know that the vast amounts of money they spend
on teambuilding will reflect on their bottom-line. In addition, every
employee at every company that has ever bought teambuilding has been
exposed to the outdoor teambuilding experience. So why do it again?
I’m afraid to say that the Teambuilding horse has pretty much
bolted from the stable. In this article I will examine changes in
teambuilding from both the buyer and the service provider’s
point of view to enable both parties to make better choices.
Teambuilding facilitators must understand that they need to adjust
their programmes to fit today’s business culture which is characterized
by:
- Greater employee expectations
- Greater demands on employee resources
- Faster than ever turnaround
times
- Tighter budgets
- Higher employee and customer stress levels
- A definite focus on
individual skills development followed only then by team development
- A
greater degree of skepticism about “teambuilding” and
its effectiveness due to the fact that there is no
clear distinction among service providers of the difference between
team development programmes and corporate recreation.
In the past two years, the teambuilding landscape has changed dramatically,
particularly in the following respects:
- Buyers are realizing more and more that there is a significant
difference between “corporate recreation” (doing
fun stuff just for the sake of doing them) and structured team
development strategies. They’re no longer convinced that
activities with a 5 minute chat about the activity and teamwork
following the activity adds any more value to the event. If they
wanted to have fun, they know they can do it at a fraction of
the cost by going bowling or driving their own 4x4’s.
The reality is the clients have wizened up! Today clients
want real, business-related solutions as part of teambuilding.
They want their employees to return to the office not nursing
sore muscles but
- Participants in teambuilding events have changed. It’s
not that they’ve become more demanding, but they no longer
see the point in playing silly games, getting the 4x4 from point
A to B, or jumping on oversized jumping castles. They’ve
also become somewhat heavier – I see that in the teams
we work with. People are less active and therefore less willing
to participate in high impact activity sessions. The global
fight against obesity and sedentary lifestyles has a definite
impact on teambuilding programmes. Is it realistic to expect
office-bound desk-jockeys to endure hours of outdoor activities,
to climb trees, 15m high gum poles, ride mountain-bikes etc?
Are there not other, equally powerful metaphors and activities
that can be created?
- Outcomes have become more important than activities.
Clients want to know what they’re going to learn and how
they can take these lessons back to the workplace for immediate
implementation. They want exercises that are inclusive of all
team members and that are focused on their particular team focus
areas. They want a bigger focus on “unpacking” activities
on order to create better outcomes, rather than do one activity
after the other.
- Clients want facilitators with business experience.
The days of adventure athletes, Phys. Ed teachers and recreation
activity leaders leading team development session are over.
Because of point 3 above, facilitators of team development
no longer require a “bakkie
and piece of rope”, but rather extensive business background
and a large knowledge base of team development strategies
that have worked in a number of business-sector situations.
Facilitators therefore need to have a comprehensive research
base from which to work.
So, what can team development facilitators and companies selling “teambuilding” take
from these trends?
- Design outcomes-based programmes. Fun is not
a business outcome. Neither is “having a good time” and “getting
to know each other”. If these are your outcomes, by all
means run your programme. There is a place for it in the market,
but then call it what it is – Corporate Recreation – and
NOT teambuilding.
- Use / employ facilitators with a strong
background in business. This should be characterized by BOTH
experience and ongoing, topical research. River guides, adventurers,
4x4 instructors, tour guides are just that. They may be great
as task managers / instructors, but they very seldom have the
business knowledge, psychological tools and theoretical background
to facilitate learning.
- De-emphasize the importance of the
activities. Games etc. are merely vehicles and not ends
in themselves. If your activities take up more than 1/3 of
your programme content you’re
missing the plot. Any programme that does not include
scheduled indoor time will not transfer learning and will not
establish recall beyond the activity itself. The message behind
the activity is what really counts. Not moving 5 tires from
point A to C.
- Know your “audience” and be flexible when
it comes to the exercises and activities you use. In every other
industry we talk about the importance of the client – but
in teambuilding, most suppliers try to push every square peg
into a round hole under the guise of “you have to move
out of your comfort zone to learn”. Rubbish. This is just
a ploy to sell you physically demanding and time consuming activities
because the facilitator doesn’t
have enough content to fill the time you’ve booked
him / her for!
- Re-look at your fees structure. Why should
per person charges come into effect when you’re actually
only charging your client for the time you and your co-facilitators
spend with the group. Per person charges are only there to
fleece money from your clients. Unless of course your programme
relies on using “disposable” resources
that you buy per person attending the programme.
I know that these are powerful points to ponder on when looking
to buy your next teambuilding programme. Evaluating your considered
service provider is the toughest decision you’ll make – simply
because there are so many providers and many of them prey on the
lack of distinction between “teambuilding”, “team
development” and “corporate recreation”’.
Back to the top | Back to Articles |